The Revelation of Adam

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Credo, you have been led to some very strange doctrine evident not only in this thread but in others. You likely disagree because you have bought into these "theories". Always question... ALWAYS question and dont add to the Bible, its quite alright as written and if you dont understand it, dont make it something its not (or subscribe to others who have done this) just to lend human understanding to something that is from God. There will come a day where understanding of all of these matters will be known. That day is not today. My perception of your posts is they came from someone I wrongly assumed you to be a non-christian. You need to prayerfully consider what you hold as truth and why you seem to be "fighting" a very lonely "fight".

Let me see if I understand.

A guy starts a thread talking about how Adam is the Devil, something no one else in the history of Christianity has taught, and all you have to add to the thread is that *I* have very strange doctrine?

At least you're funny. Did you have something to say about the thread topic or like Charis are you more fascinated by me? I should start my own fan club. Maybe you and Charis should start a blog about me, that way we could stick to the topic of the thread at least.

 

[imoss]

Or perhaps you should just take a little time in prayer & question that which you hold as truth. God Bless you young man.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Or perhaps you should just take a little time in prayer & question that which you hold as truth. God Bless you young man.

If you could point me to which "very strange doctrine" I hold to I'd be more inclined to consider it.

 

[serpentslayer]

My words have been simple, and the Revelation is a simplistic interpretation which has no myth, fable, or mystery to it. There are greater than you who shall resist as well because they have much more to lose. It is not my place to convince anyone, as i have said: and, even though i thought interaction might be helpful, i have errored greatly (may GOD forgive me, truly). It is obvious that you cannot convince me and i cannot convince you: and yes, this is directed at you, since you have been the one playing 'devil's advocate' (it is good to doubt what men say - Rom 3:4; Advocating Adam is like advocating the devil because hel probably doesn't want to been seen as a man either). I could sit here and respond point-by-point; but, (and you shall say that you prophesied correctly about my running out of sub. things to say) it is pointless, and no reason to compound my sin. Through all of this i can say this: whereas i have made many claims to what i beleive is the TRUTH, you have made none: and whereas i can point to my Source with one finger, you seem to have many to point at. i'm not trying to justify myself, only to show the difference between us: and the difference between assupmtion and fact is faith. For whereas i take it on faith that GEN 1 is complete as written, you leave the door open for uncertainty when you say GOD could have left something out. Your foundation is uncertain, so all that which follows is uncertain. And the Revelation is the difference between those who accept Gen 1 as complete, and those who do not.

As far as the KJV (1611) is concerned, i did not say it was the only bible from which one can learn the TRUTH; but, it is the only one i use. But, if bibles disagree, then there can never be resolution. Since you are certain the Revelation is untrue, start a new thread giving your beliefs on angel creation and the 'Fall' of them and man, and point to the sources from which you derive these. As a christian, do you not desire that we should know the TRUTH, knowing that the TRUTH can set one free (Matt 8:32)? i, too, wish not to be deceived anymore about anything.

One final word: since it is written that where there is no Law, sin is not imputed, then, from my understanding, we today are under a greater condemnation then those who had not bibles to show them the TRUTH; therefore, in this regard, i do not feel sorry for those who were before the KJV or any other bible.

Serpentslayer

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

My words have been simple, and the Revelation is a simplistic interpretation which has no myth, fable, or mystery to it.

Then why the long spiel about milk and meat?

There are greater than you who shall resist as well because they have much more to lose.

Well that's all very heroic... But what exactly do we have to lose?

you have been the one playing 'devil's advocate'

I had to laugh at this because if you're right then I really was playing devil's advocate wasn't I? But I don't have any reason to think you're right...

and you shall say that you prophesied correctly about my running out of sub. things to say

I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I've been in a lot of conversations like this one, so it was an edumaceted guess.

Through all of this i can say this: whereas i have made many claims to what i beleive is the TRUTH, you have made none

Yes, I did. I claimed that the serpent, Adam, and Eve are three different persons. I made a lot of other truth claims too, but I guess that's the most relevant one.

whereas i can point to my Source with one finger

Well I've tried to show that your finger is just pointing at your head, where all your assumptions lie.

you seem to have many to point at.

I think I only appealed to reason, Scripture, and once I appealed to two commentaries on Scripture. I believe Scripture is the highest and final authority, but I don't believe it is the only authority. I agree with Francis Turretin when he said "reason is minster." I'm Reformed in my theology and us reformed folk have always seen reason as playing an ancillary role in theology, I can't make any apologies for that.

the difference between assupmtion and fact is faith.

So I can turn all my assumptions into facts by having faith in them.

For whereas i take it on faith that GEN 1 is complete as written, you leave the door open for uncertainty when you say GOD could have left something out.

Uncertainty isn't always a bad thing. Deuteronomy 29:29 says “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." We might say that there are two types of things in this world, things we can know and things we can't. Ironically, we need to know when we can't know a thing and when we can. Doing that requires looking at a thing from different angles, flushing out the various possibilities, knowing the extent of what is implied and what can be inferred, and understanding the difference between possibility and probability.

Talking about having faith in the completeness of Genesis 1 is, again, very heroic sounding, but in my view it's just a little naive. There are lots of things Genesis doesn't tell us. Like every book of the Bible, it has a particular focus. It's not just recording facts to record facts like an almanac. It's trying to get a point across and to do that it leaves out some things and emphasizes others.

And let's keep in mind the type of "completeness" we are talking about here. Your "completeness" has to do with the notion that the command in Gen. 2 is a verbatim and exhaustive record. I'm saying that we don't know that is the case. Why am I saying that? Not because I'm into skepticism but because I can point to other places in Scripture where we have the same thing. So my uncertainty is based on Scripture. Your certainty is based on your own presumptuousness.

Since you are certain the Revelation is untrue

Can you not see that it's *your interpretation of revelation* that I think is untrue? Can you not distinguish between your interpretation and the actual Word of God or have the two things become one and the same in your mind?

start a new thread giving your beliefs on angel creation and the 'Fall' of them and man, and point to the sources from which you derive these.

Why should I do that? I'm not very interested in angels. I'm not one of those people who has an "angels are watching over me" bumper stickers. I don't know that they are and, frankly, I don't think it makes much difference either way.

As a christian, do you not desire that we should know the TRUTH, knowing that the TRUTH can set one free (Matt 8:32)? i, too, wish not to be deceived anymore about anything.

I'm all about knowing the truth, but I really find it boring to uselessly speculate about things. For example, I couldn't care less whether there is life on other planets. I'd rather go to the dentist than here someone talk about whether Melchizedek had parents or whether Nephilim are hybrid angel-people or whether we have guardian angels.. And I don't have the slightest inclination to speculate on how or when angels were created or how and when they fell.

 

[jfritzyb]

This is the Revelation of Adam.

Adam was given the Truth (Commandment), and he was responsible for it (Gen 2:15-17); but, when he told Eve the Commandment, he added the lie that they could not touch it and he did not tell her the name of the forbidden tree. By this act, Adam earned the reputation of being the devil because he told the first lie, the reputation of being a serpent because he spoke with a forked tongue, one spekaing both Truth (don't eat) and Lie (don't touch) at once, and the reputation of being subtle because Eve had no reason to doubt what he said, so she beleived what he said. Thus Eve was deceived from the very Beginning, and her testimony of what she thought was the Truth is the proof she had been deceived because it contains an untruth (don't touch), but Eve is not the first liar, the devil is (Jn 8:44).

I see; so you're saying that the whole "do not touch" bit was something that Adam threw into the mix when He was relating to Eve what God had said about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Assuming that you did imply the above, then I can understand why you'd say that; however, something specifically jumps out at me when I read what you had posted above and that is this; that there seems to be implied this notion of the woman not being able to communicate with God like Adam could.

If what I just said about the woman earlier accurately reflects your belief about how our first parents lived and walked on earth and communed with God, do you have scripture to validate this stance?

Just curious.

 

[NoahsDad]

There are known knowns and known unknows,The absence of evidence is Not the evidence of absence!
Say for instance if I said that Credu-Ut-Intelligum has a Gun pointed at you,the fact that you dont see the gun doesnt mean he hasnt indeed got a gun pointed at you,so SHOOT ,SHOOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T WAIT TILL YOU SEE THE EVIDENCE,CUZ WHEN YOU SEE THE GUN YOU'RE ALREADY DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA

Uncertainty isn't always a bad thing. Deuteronomy 29:29 says “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." We might say that there are two types of things in this world, things we can know and things we can't. Ironically, we need to know when we can't know a thing and when we can. Doing that requires looking at a thing from different angles, flushing out the various possibilities, knowing the extent of what is implied and what can be inferred, and understanding the difference between possibility and probability.

 

[Crazy4GODword]

Sin is not simply just doing wrong like stealing but sin is someone that does not listen to GOD (not just the word but his advice of a free will). sin is Something who makes themselves the man on the throne instead of Jesus being on their throne of life, following there own ways and not GOD's. also it means that the person does not acknowledge that they have sinned.

like Adam and Eve they were not to eat of the fruit it was GOD command and decision for them and they turned the other direction.

Sin is the forgetful ways of GOD